Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citrus (company)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citrus (company)[edit]

A non-notable company. Coverage in the cited sources is in the main trivial and incidental. Mattinbgn\^talk 12:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd be interested in a clear reason for this, it seems to be subjective. How does this article differ from those for adstream, Fnuky Advertising, SMART (advertising agency) and Toshiedo, which are also Australian agencies? Cocolaco (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our "other stuff exists" guideline has an answer to this one: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article". For one thing, we have other articles that should be deleted; for another, straightforward analogies between articles are hard to make. We consider each case on its merits, once someone gets around to bringing it. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There's at least one of those which probably should be nominated for deletion. Orderinchaos 11:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Cocolaco (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a contested PROD. The reason for contesting is here. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I added the prod on the basis that, at the time, the article didn't attempt to establish notability. Of the external links now present, two ([1], [2]) don't mention the company at all, one ([3]) literally only lists its name without any elaboration, and the other ([4]) totals a single sentence. To me that's not enough to indicate significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. If better sources can be provided I'll certainly reconsider, but the generic nature of the company name makes this one kind of a pain to research in e.g. Google News, and an initial trawl there hasn't given me anything. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, strongly, obvious spam: Citrus is an independent interactive agency.... OK, but what do you do there? Product offering includes web design & development, email programs and web applications.... Oh, that. "References" are entirely to websites they helped develop. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smerdia - fails WP:CORP. Orderinchaos 11:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.